politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The party is very separate from the people who vote for it. I don't have a vote for who becomes Speaker, only a vote for my individual representative, who himself is chosen by both Democrats and Republicans (our primary is open and everyone knows the Democrat is going to win the general election so the real election is in the primary). He's in something like a D+30 district and still threatens to oppose Democratic legislation unless it's more fiscally conservative.
The ancients are dying off, but this isn't resulting in an open race for replacement, they're using their influence to pass it on to chosen successors that share their values. Theoretically there could be a revolution, but politics isn't really just a battle of ideas, but a complex web of relationships and fundraising. One of Hakeem Jeffries primary qualifications for succeeding Pelosi is simply that he can raise a lot of money.
But I agree that's not fixed, and a good chair could really lean into candidates who excite voters rather than are approved by donors. The Obama's of the party win while the machine politicians generally just maintain power in safe districts. You need someone who excites people to flip districts and states.
It's unfortunate that Katie Porter might be eliminated in the initial round in California. We need progressive successors to our own ancients in the senate. Massachusetts has a pretty good bench getting built. Hopefully when Warren steps down Ayanna Pressley will succeed her. I'm not sure if Bernie has anyone in Vermont lined up.
Can't really disagree with much there.... I would say that a party's views (should) reflect those of its voters. Ideally, that's what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy. They're supposed to represent the will of their constituents, and if they aren't, you vote in a new one (obv it doesn't really work out that way in the real world. Maybe Finland or something).
And this is kind of what I'm talking about.
There's this defeatism everywhere lately (much of it is astroturfing, but I believe it's been somewhat effective, unfortunately) with people being like, "I'm totally a leftist (often sus), and the conservative Democratic party is just going to run their establishment candidate no matter what and there's nothing I can do so I'll throw away my vote on a third party, if I vote at all."
Some'll throw in something about "Genocide Joe" too, somewhat betraying their actual intentions and the true reality that most of them want nobody left of Donald Trump in that office...
Yet everyone seems to forget that Hillary Clinton very much was the establishment candidate in 2008. It was "her turn." Obama was just another nobody's on a debate stage with like a dozen other relative nobodies, and Hillary Clinton. It would have been like (if Trump actually attended the debates, just a thought experiment) if Doug Burgum, or Will Hurd became the GOP candidate over Trump despite the party doing everything it can ($$) to get Trump as the candidate. It would be unheard of.
In other words, Democrats were making preparations for her coronation. And none of that ended up mattering, because Democratic primary voters wanted Obama. I personally switched my affiliation from "independent" to "Democrat" to make that vote.
None of that mattered because the liberals/progressive/the left/etc.(voting) public made it very clear that they didn't give a shit what the Democratic party wanted, they want "that guy who gave that speech at the 2004 DNC." And that's who we got, and Hillary Clinton didn't run as a third party candidate or anything silly like that. We almost got it to happen again with Bernie... Different situation and discussion, though I do think things could be very different at the DNC now that Hillary is out of electoral politics .
(To be fair, Obama's demographics, and social media teams were on point and like a decade ahead of their time. Probably pretty rudimentary compared to that (or literally just the fact that they had a social media team)